Ruled under the absolute monarchy of His Majesty
Jigme Singye Wangchuk, Bhutan
which coined the infamous “Gross National Happiness”, has been ranked 2nd in
the SAARC Human Rights Violators Index 2006.

A landlocked and closed country, little information
on the human rights violations was available. The serious restrictions on the
freedom of movement in the name of preserving the socalled “Shangrila” made
collection, collation and analysis of human rights violations in Bhutan the most difficult in South
Asia. In more ways than one, the absence of a written
constitution, political parties, freedom of association and assembly, press and
independent judiciary made Bhutan No. 2 human rights violator in South Asia. However, if absence of reports on human
rights violations were to be the yardsticks for measuring the state of human
rights, the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea will have a better human
rights record than most democratic countries.

There were no political parties in Bhutan. Bhutan also failed
to release any political prisoner, approximately 70 arrested persons mainly
from the ethnic Sarchops and Nepalis, who remained incarcerated in prison
connection with violence associated with political dissidence during 1991-92.

However, there were no reports of political
killings.

On 26 March 2005, His Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuk
released the draft Constitution with 34-articles for public review. The draft
constitution was nothing more than a replica of the condemned 1998 Constitution
of Maldives.

The draft constitution proposed establishment of
two houses of parliament – a 25-member National Council and a 75-member
National Assembly – with the King as the head of State. If adopted, the
Constitution would replace the royal decree of 1953 that gives the king
absolute power and turn Bhutan
into a two-party parliamentary democracy.[1]
The proposed Constitution also provided 22 fundamental rights, including the
right to life, right to freedom of speech, opinion and expression, freedom of
the press, right to information, right to privacy, right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion etc.

On 17 December 2005, on the occasion of Bhutan’s 98th National Day, His Majesty Jigme
Singye Wangchuk announced that he would abdicate the throne in favor of his
eldest son, Crown Prince Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuk and hold country’s first
national elections in 2008 to establish full-fledged parliamentary democracy in
Bhutan.[2]

If the proposed constitution of Bhutan were to
be adopted, His Majesty would enjoy the same powers as that of the President of
Maldives under the 1998 Constitution. Apart from being the Head of the State,
His Majesty would have the power to appoint and dismiss the Chief Justices and
other judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court, the Chief Election
Commissioner and other Election Commissioners, the Auditor General, the
Chairperson and members of the Royal Civil Service Commission, the Chairperson
and members of the Anti-Corruption Commission, the heads of the Defence Forces,
the Attorney General and the Council of Ministers, among others. His Majesty
shall enjoy absolute immunity under Article 2 (15) unless a National Referendum
decides otherwise.

Bhutan did not have an
independent judiciary. His Majestyremained the supreme head of the judiciary and the only authority to
grant pardon, and appoint and dismiss the judges. His Majesty exercised these
powers in the name of National Judicial Commission. Only judges for the
Dungkhag (sub-district) Courts are appointed by the Chief Justice of the High
Court.[3]

The draft Constitution of Bhutan proposed setting
up of Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice of Bhutan. But under article
2(19) of the proposed constitution, the King would appoint the Chief Justice
and other judges of the Supreme Court, and the Chief Justice and other judges
of the High Court and have the power to remove them. Article 21(15) states that
the judges of the Supreme Court and the High Court would enjoy independence
“provided that a Drangpon [judge] may be censored or suspended by a command of
the Druk Gyalpo [i.e. the King of Bhutan] on the recommendation of the National
Judicial Commission for proven misbehaviour, which, in the opinion of the
Commission, does not deserve impeachment”. The members of the National Judicial
Commission were also appointed by the King under Article 21(17). Moreover, the
draft constitution does not define what constitutes “misbehaviour”, and any act
or sign of defiance of the King by the judge could be construed as misbehaviour
leading to his/her removal by the King.

The judiciary would continue to remain subservient
to the King in Bhutan.

In December 2005, the 84th session of the National
Assembly passed “The Evidence Act of Bhutan, 2005”. The Act for the first time
laid down several significant provisions with the objective that “no person
shall be convicted on the basis of suspicion, doubt or hearsay until the
charges are proven and supported by witnesses or evidences”. The Act identified
evidence as all types of proof presented and permitted by the court of law at a
legal proceeding including testimonials, documents, electronic records and
other physical evidence related to matters under inquiry in the court of law.[4]
The Act contained 13 chapters on various clauses related to the presentation of
evidence in the court of law from its relevancy and admissibility, and types of
evidences such as oral, physical and documentary to questioning of witnesses
and criminal confessions.

Bhutan did not allow registration
of human rights organisations. The exiled leaders ran human rights
organisations and political parties from India
and Nepal.

The Human Rights Council of Bhutan, headed by
exiled refugee leader Teknath Rizal and the Bhutanese Refugee Repatriation
Representative Committee were based in Nepal. Some of the prominent
political parties in exile were Bhutan People’s Party, Druk National Congress,
and Bhutan Gorkha National Liberation Front.

There was no freedom of speech and independent
press. The only newspaper, Kuensel, was controlled by the government.

Although televisionwas
introduced in 1999, the government of Bhutan continues to impose
restrictions on many TV channels, including news channels, on the ground that
they were not good for the health of Bhutanese culture.

In March 2005, Bhutan banned some of the Indian TV
channels such as Zee News, Aaj Tak, Sun TV and international TV channels such
as MTV, FTV and Ten Sports on the ground that a media impact study carried out
by Bhutan Communication Authority during 2003-2004 concluded that many foreign
channels were a ‘‘bad influence’’ on Bhutanese social and cultural values.[5]
Many Indian TV channels were again banned in July 2005 on the ground of
cultural invasion.[6]

Despite Bhutan-Nepal Joint Verifica-tion Team
recognising hundreds of refugees as citizens of Bhutan,
during 2005, Bhutan
failed to take back a single refugee. Over 100,000 refugees have ben sheltered
in eastern Nepal.
Bhutan took full advantage
of the political turmoil in Nepal.

Bhutan was helped by India in the
suppression of rights of the refugees. India
repeatedly prevented the return of the Bhutanese refugees throughout 2005
though they have the right to travel through India under Indo-Bhutan Friendship
Treaty of 1950. In fact, in 1990s, when the ethnic Nepalis were fleeing from Bhutan, Indian authorities put them on trucks
and other vehicles and dumped them to Nepal.

Frustrated by the procrastinated repatriation
process, the Bhutanese refugees made attempts at self-repatriation under the
Volunteer Homeland Return and National Reconciliation Programme supported by
Bhutan Gorkha National Liberation Front and Human Rights Organization of Bhutan
since August 2005. Such self-repatriation bids continued even after the warning
by UNHCR that it was risky and against the agreement between Nepal and Bhutan. The UNHCR also clarified
that since it was not a party to the bilateral dialogue between Bhutan and Nepal, it was “not capable of
monitoring repatriation and rehabilitation of the refugees in their home
country.”[7]

The refugees were prevented by the Indian security
forces from entering into India.

On 3 August 2005, Indian and Nepalese police
prevented 323 Bhutanese refugees (from 4 months to 75 years of age), including
157 women from the Beldangi camps from crossing the Nepal-India border at Mechi
Bridge to enter Panitanki in West Bengal state of India en route to Bhutan.
While nine persons were detained, Nepal police took others back to
their camps in Jhapa in two trucks and a bus.[8]

On 14 August 2005, a group of about 100 Bhutanese
refugees reached Phuentsholing, a Bhutanese town along the India-Bhutan border
to hand over a letter addressed to King Jigme Singye Wangchuk but were forcibly
sent back to India by the Bhutanese police. About a dozen refugees were detained
by the Bhutanese police for six hours before handing them over to the Indian
authorities.[9]

On 4 October 2005, a group of 21 persons belonging
to five families from Beldangi refugee camps led by Bhutan Gorkha National
Liberation Front vice-president, Dalli Ram Katel were reportedly arrested by
the Bhutanese Police while attempting to enter the kingdom at the gateway to
Phuentsholing. They were later handed over to the Indian police.[10]

On 10 December 2005, Indian police prevented around
300 Bhutanese refugees from seven refugee camps from crossing the MechiBridge
at the Nepal-India border en route to Bhutan. Nepal police drove them back to
their camps.[12]

On 17 December 2005, Indian security personnel
barred Bhutanese refugees from entering India
at the MechiBridge
on their way to Bhutan.
A confrontation between the Indian security personnel and the Bhutanese
refugees resulted in the injury of nine refugees.[13]

In December 2005, the Association of Press Freedom
Activists, Bhutan, alleged
that the government of Bhutan
resettled people belonging to the ruling tribe on the lands of the ethnic
Nepali refugees at Dagana, Punakha, Samdrup Jongkhar, Sarpang, Samtse, and
Tsirang. It also alleged that Samdrup, Jongkhar and Sarpang Chief Districts
Offices had already submitted proposal to allocate the refugees’ lands to
so-called landless people from dominant tribes.[14]

UNHCR provided essential food and non-food items,
shelter, medical care and education to the Bhutanese refugees living in seven
refugee camps in Nepal.
The UNHCR have been managing the camps with support from the United States, European Commission, Japan, Germany,
United Kingdom and France.[15]
However, facilities being provided to the refugees were not adequate by any
means. Global rise in oil price further forced UNHCR to reduce the already
limited aid provided to the refugees.

UNHCR had substantially reduced facilities such as
ration, kerosene, medical facilities, education aid and allowance for
maintenance of the camps’ roofs in the later part of 2004. Association of
Medical Doctors of Asia and the UNHCR were sponsoring health service to the refugees
and education up to the 12th grade for their children. However, during 2005, it
was reported that only the first aid health service and school level education
were available to the refugees.[16]
The refugees also complained of inadequate food quota.[17]
Supply of vegetables and fruits was also severely lowered and other staple food
reduced during 2005.[18]

In absence of electricity, kerosene had been the
main cooking and lighting fuel for the Bhutanese refugees in the seven camps.
Due to rise in the price of kerosene, UNHCR cut down its supply in January
2005.[19]
The reduction of kerosene quota forced the refugees to cook their food with
firewood. This created conflicts with the local people as the refugees
collected fallen trees, dried leaves and wigs from the nearby forests, which
was resented by the local community.[20]

The refugees also lacked adequate shelter. In big
families, unmarried adults and married couples were compelled to live in the
same tiny plot of hut area allocated to the respective families. Leaking of
roofs made life further difficult for the refugees during the rainy days.[21]

The refugees did not have any job opportunity, as
paid work is officially not allowed both inside and outside the camps. However,
some of the women refugees did casual jobs like weaving,[22]
and in some camps they were allowed to crush stones from the dry TimaiRiver
bed to sell to local construction contractors.[23]

There have been reports of rising number of
suicides in the refugee camps.[24]
Frustration and domestic violence are believed to be the main factors.

On 19 November 2005, the National Assembly directed
the Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs to issue a nationwide notification
that all conferences and public meetings must be conducted in the national
language, Dzongkha, pursuant to a 1993 Kasho (edict) issued by His Majesty the
King. However, if the meetings were meant specifically only for foreigners they
could be conducted in English.[25]The minorities like Nepalis or Sarchops have
no right to their language.

Bhutan also failed to address discriminatory laws
such as Bhutan Citizenship Act of 1985 which provides for termination of
citizenship of any naturalized citizen at any time if he or she “has shown by
act or speech to be disloyal in any manner whatsoever to the king, country, and
people of Bhutan”. Bhutanese were virtually discouraged from marrying
non-Bhutanese under the Marriage Act of 1980.

Women in general enjoyed freedom and equality. Yet,
literacy rate among the women is only 48.7% in comparison to 69.1% among males.[26]
According to Bhutanese Women and Youth Empowerment Programme, about 52% of
refugees from Bhutan in Nepal were
women and they are denied their rights.

Though Bhutan ratified the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1981 and
established a National Commission for Women and Children in 2004, it failed to
address discrimination against women under the Inheritance Act of 1980 and the
Marriage Act of 1980 (amended in 1996). Under the Marriage Act those who marry
non-Bhutanese are deprived of benefits including promotion in Government job
with effect from 11 June 1977, termination of services from the national
defence department or in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, deprivation of
governmental welfare services and schemes, including distribution of land, cash
loans, various grants, and educational and training facilities.

In addition, the Citizenship Act of 1985 was
strictly enforced to target the ethnic Nepalis of Bhutan whom the government
officially recognizes as foreigners.

Bhutan was one of the first
countries to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 23 May 1990.
The government amended the Marriage Act of 1980 in 1996 and enacted the Rape
Act in 1993. But, Bhutan
failed to adopt the draft Administration of Juvenile Justice Act and draft
Immoral Traffic Act.

A large number of children of the Bhutanese
refugees living in Nepal
have been denied the right to nationality. Bhutan failed to take any measure
to ensure return of the refugees and ensure the rights of the children.

About 78 % of the populations reportedly had access
to safe drinking water. Yet, six out of ten children in rural Bhutan suffered
from diarrhoea, worms, and skin and eye infections largely due to lack of safe
drinking water and poor environmental sanitation.[27]
Both infant mortality (60.5 per 1,000 live births) and maternal mortality (255
per 100,000 live births) were high.[28]
The government has been providinguniversal, free, and compulsory primary school education upto 11 years.
The primary school enrollment increased 4.4 percent per year since 1995, with
enrollment of girls increasing at 5.6 percent.[29]GrossPrimary school enrolment rate was 72%.[30]
Yet, about 3 out of every 10 children of school-going age did not go to school,
especially in the remote areas.[31]

Many students in rural areas have to travel long
distances to reach the nearest school. Lack of schools in several rural areas
forced children to leave home to attend the school regularly. Some parents
built small mud huts for their children near the school, away from the home.
Lack of electricity made it difficult for the children to study at night.[32]

There was no accurate data on child labour in Bhutan as of
2005. In 2000, the ILO projected 124,000 economically active children in the
age group of 10-14 years, representing 51.1% of this age group. Of them, 69,000
were boys and 55,000 were girls.[33]

Bhutan also failed to withdraw the draconian rule
introduced in 1990 under which all Nepali-speaking citizens need to produce
a No Objection Certificate or Police Clearance Certificate or Security
Clearance Certificate from the police stating that none of their
relative had taken part in the pro-democracy movement against monarchy during
September-October 1990 in order to get admission in schools or sit for
examinations.[34] Under
this draconian rule the children of Nepali-speaking community, especially those
whose relatives were living in refugee camps in Nepal, as well as some Christian
children continued to be denied access to education.